Binary JSON Support Added To PostgreSQL, Competes With MongoDB

[uid313]

Maybe I'm confused, English isn't my first language, but isn't PostgreSQL using a license very similar to MIT or BSD ?

Is it really that vanity ?

I would have prefered if it said, something along the lines of what is in the OpenLDAP license:

"OPENLDAP FOUNDATION AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS "

Instead of:

"UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA"

http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

But it is not the MIT license, and it is not the BSD license.
If it was MIT or BSD license, you could just use this without consulting the legal department since it would be under a pre-approved licensed.
But since it is not an established common license it would have to be sent to the company lawyers for legal review before usage.

[darkixion]

It is too bad Postgres has a vanity license, because it seems like a really great database.

I believe the vanity license is holding it back.

I'm not sure why you're declaring it to be a vanity license. The reason why it's not BSD or MIT has already been explained before. The OSI wouldn't accept it as a variant of existing licenses, so a new one was required: http://pgsnake.blogspot.co.uk/2010/0...en-source.html

[darkixion]

It is too bad Postgres has a vanity license, because it seems like a really great database.

I believe the vanity license is holding it back.

I'm not sure why you're declaring it to be a vanity license. The reason why it's not BSD or MIT has already been explained before. The OSI wouldn't accept it as a variant of existing licenses, so a new one was required: http://pgsnake.blogspot.co.uk/2010/0...en-source.html

[Lennie]

But it is not the MIT license, and it is not the BSD license.
If it was MIT or BSD license, you could just use this without consulting the legal department since it would be under a pre-approved licensed.
But since it is not an established common license it would have to be sent to the company lawyers for legal review before usage.

I do wonder for how many users or developers this is a real problem.

Companies like RedHat or VMWare, have a legal department that will look at it and their customers just go to them for support. The license of the original project makes no difference to them.

Did distributions really have a lot of problems with the PostgreSQL license ?

And I wonder if SPDX will make a difference to solve these problems:

http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/89/161

[uid313]

I'm not sure why you're declaring it to be a vanity license. The reason why it's not BSD or MIT has already been explained before. The OSI wouldn't accept it as a variant of existing licenses, so a new one was required: http://pgsnake.blogspot.co.uk/2010/0...en-source.html

It is a vanity license. It is not an established license, its their own license, hence a vanity license.

They would have no problem if they just used the BSD and MIT instead.
The BSD and MIT licenses are both fine, but no apparently they're not good enough, so for no reason at all, they make their own license instead of just using a popular well-established proven, and trusted license.

[Lennie]

It is a vanity license. It is not an established license, its their own license, hence a vanity license.

They would have no problem if they just used the BSD and MIT instead.
The BSD and MIT licenses are both fine, but no apparently they're not good enough, so for no reason at all, they make their own license instead of just using a popular well-established proven, and trusted license.

I don't know why you are "complaining" about something that happened over 20 years ago, do you have any idea how hard it is to re-license such an old and large code base ?

[Nth_man]

uid313 first talked about license problems nowadays.

[Lennie]

uid313 first talked about license problems nowadays.

Is that a reply to me ? He was talking about PostgreSQL it's license was chosen over 20 years ago.